Commercialisation of Media
"Crass commercialism has made media to become a pet in the hands of religious lobbyists and political parties".
Now really, how many times have we heard those clichéd words jumbled and re-written and redone by those great journalists who have had their share of journalistic experience stored in their accounts before they can say these words. Easier said than done, I think and it was only after getting the hang of the contemporary media scene during my training. The nay sayers argue that media during the pre-independence era was very people-friendly with every media organisation striving and toiling hard to send the inspirational and motivational editorials and ignite the minds of the Indians to throw away the colonial Britishers from India. It's still 'people-friendly but not to that section of population who cry at the social evils of our society like poverty, illiteracy and religious jingoism and like, which means a small section.
True, this whole 'people-friendly' thing creeps those bright media débutantes who come with high ideals and principles, drinking in every media ethic available on this earth but slowly they realise that 'igniting the dormant minds' creeps them out coz its scrapped by their bosses and to top it all, the media critics throw stones at them, categorising them as commercial. Their life becomes paradoxical, oscillating and vacillating between the ethics and the reality. I remember a journalist who had come to our college for a friendly interaction said that she had lot of 'development journalism' stories but most of them had been rejected by her boss. The present media thinks that there are more important things than igniting the dormant minds about fighting against independence or any other social evils coz it does not sell, as simple as that. It's not a saleable story in today's world.
One would wanna throw brickbats on media only when he/she realises that it has goes way too commercial showing how Kareena became zero-sized or how Salman got himself a new girlfriend. Why is it that "igniting the dormant minds" stories are categorized under a tagline called development journalism? Simply because the 'regular' news is what the people watch whose ingredients are either highly political or too much crime and violence or celebrity-based. The development stories are shunted sideways but still have their respectable tag. It's like a commercially flop movie getting 10 awards at the national level.
Anything 'good' fed by the newsmakers will simply have no ratings. Who would wanna close down their business? After all, its business first and news next. The subaltern is simply not accepted. Where does the blame lie? Hmm good question!
Will this change, one may ask. The others could fight with me for my argument on the mainstream media. However disputatious and harsh it may seem, truth remains the same. Those who don't fit into the mould receive awards for their immense contribution towards journalism, others mint money and live happily ever after, or do they? I don't know. I'm not one of them!
Final word: I stumbled across this response to an article about the topic in a reputed newspaper:
The article truly portrayed the increasing commercialisation of the media. It is true that the media only highlights news that evoke considerable interest among the viewers and is not bothered about the ideals of democracy or the death of ‘insignificant’ persons. But we shouldn’t forget that part of the blame is with us. It is we the people who have commercialised the media. If only the news and other channels highlight issues like poverty, hunger and such other things prevalent in each and every corner of the world, will anyone watch the reports and appreciate them? There’s a need for us to change too.. G. Ranjith Kumar Reddy
Hyderabad
